Summary

About Bible scholarship

Most Bible scholars are interested in what people believed. I am not. I am interested in the logic of God. Those are different questions.

The Bible contains many books, and some are more logical than others. If a writer seems to respect logic (as Mark and John seem to) then they interest me. But if a writer openly rejects logic (what Paul dismisses as "the wisdom of the Greeks") then that writer loses my interest.

'God' defined

John is the only Bible writer who defines the word God. He
does so in his first verse:

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God. (John 1:1)

'Word' is the Greek 'logos' meaning
logic. Later Christians gave it a special supernatural
meaning, but when John wrote it still had its normal Greek
meaning. It was a technical term in philosophy, beginning with
Heraclitus, circa 535-475 BC. Aristotle confirmed the meaning
of logos in his 'on rhetoric'. We persuade people using 'logos' (logic),
'pathos' (emotion) and 'ethos' (our reputation). The modern word logic
is derived from logos.

"Logos" is a principle of order
and knowledge (see the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy 2nd
edition):

Logos: The Greek term for 'reason' for 'giving an account'
(Plato). "The verb lego both to speak and to
put together. Thus Plato's emphasis is on the living
dialogue as the only context for the unveiling of logos.
Socrates claims that the logos speaks through him in the
Platonic dialogues. The Latin translation is ratio, and this
had led to a more strict use of reason in the confines of
mathematics, science and logic." (glossary of Greek
philosophical terms by Nick Gier, professor of Philosophy,
University of Idaho).

'With' is the Greek 'pros', as in
the modern usage "pro -something", meaning 'to the advantage
of'. So John 1:1 could be translated:

"In the beginning was logic,
and logic was with (on the side of, to the advantage of)
God,
and logic was God."

So logic (in the Greek sense of the word) is God. The most learned of
the early Christians and Jews seem to agree. For example, Philo of
Alexandria wrote that "The
imperfect have as their law the holy Logos [logic]" (see "The Sacrifice
of Abel",
38)

Intellectual sophistication

It is important to remember that ancient people were at
least as intelligent as us, and possibly more so. This is why:

They could not afford to be dumb.
The further
back we go in history, the harder their lives become, so they
could afford to make fewer mistakes. If you or I today make a mistake we
don't starve to death.
If we eat the wrong thing we don't die in agony. If we upset a
neighbouring village we don't suffer genocide. A
rustle in the bushes is unlikely to be a lion that will eat
our family. We can afford to be dumb.

They had broader experience.
Our ancient ancestors needed a broader understanding of all
human knowledge. Modern man ca affor4d to specialise, but ancient man
needed to know everything necessary to survival: where to find raw
materials, how to turn them into tools, how to hunt and cook and make
cloehtes and build houses, how to farm and avoid famine, personally deal
with complete strangers who want to kill you, and so on. Unlike us they
could not afford to be ignorant of anything.

Memory.
They had to carry all their knowledge in their heads.

What they achieved.
The best of them invented everything we take
for granted: writing, cities, economics, philosophy,
mathematics, science, etc., and they did it all with far fewer
tools. True, we make faster progress now, but we also have a thousand
times more people, and thanks to their earlier discoveries we have the
ability to record everything (so we don't have to discover anything
twice). So there is no evidence that as individuals we discover things
any faster than they did. Since their time we have only made small
incremental changes: better writing, more comfortable cities, more
science. But we are standing on the shoulders of giants.

A clearer view.
Society was simpler, so they had a clearer view of human
nature. Life was brutal, suffering was obvious and first hand, and
elites did not need to hide behind public relations experts. They saw
life in the raw and constructed their ideas accordingly.

In short, modern man can afford to be stupid, and ancient man
could not. Perhaps this is why our ancient ancestors had bigger brains
than we do: brain size peaked before the discovery of farming
and has been in decline ever since, according to measurements
of skulls found in French caves).

This is not to say that every ancient farmer was a
philosopher. But it is naive to think that they were not as smart as us, or that they were less happy.

Now back to the topic of gods.

Since God is logic, the first verse of the Bible now becomes
clear:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
(Genesis 1:1)

Science has shown that the universe and the earth are created
by logic. This is not a new idea: Pythagoras said that
everything is math, and Plato said the real universe is
abstract logic, and the physical world is just its shadow.
Later we shall see that Greek and Hebrew thought were much
closer than most people realise.

The name of God

When Moses described his conversion at the burning bush, he
asked for God's name (how God talks will be discussed later):

And Moses said unto God, Behold, when I come unto the
children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your
fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What
is his name? what shall I say unto them? And God said unto
Moses, I AM THAT I AM : and he said , Thus shalt thou say unto
the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you. (Exodus
3:13-14)

Here God seems to be defined as the first, self existent
principle: "I am that I am". Again this only makes sense if
God is logic itself: the self-existent abstract principle that
makes existence possible. Without logic we can know nothing
about anything, so the first principle of any philosophy must
be the existence of logic.

It was essential to Moses that people understood that God is
abstract, not a person or thing.

"Take ye therefore good heed unto yourselves; for ye saw no
manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you
in Horeb out of the midst of the fire: Lest ye corrupt
yourselves, and make you a graven image, the similitude of any
figure, the likeness of male or female, The likeness of any
beast that is on the earth, the likeness of any winged fowl
that flieth in the air, The likeness of any thing that
creepeth on the ground, the likeness of any fish that is in
the waters beneath the earth: And lest thou lift up thine eyes
unto heaven, and when thou seest the sun, and the moon, and
the stars, even all the host of heaven, shouldest be driven to
worship them, and serve them, which the LORD thy God hath
divided unto all nations under the whole heaven." (Deuteronomy
4:15-19)

Making no graven images was the second of the Ten
Commandments. The first is to put God (logic) first. It is
that important.

It is sometimes assumed that God must have arms and legs
(other than our arms and legs of course), because of passages
like this:

"Pharaoh's chariots and his host hath he cast into the sea:
his chosen captains also are drowned in the Red sea. The
depths have covered them: they sank into the bottom as a
stone. Thy right hand, O Lord, is become glorious in power: thy right hand, O Lord, hath dashed in
pieces the enemy. And in the greatness of thine excellency
thou hast overthrown them that rose up against thee: thou
sentest forth thy wrath, which consumed them as stubble. And
with the blast of thy nostrils the
waters were gathered together, the floods stood upright as an
heap, and the depths were congealed in the heart of the sea."
(Exodus 15:4-8)

The context however shows that this is metaphorical: in
Exodus 14, the crossing of the "red sea", there was no mention
of a great hand coming out of the sky to hit the Egyptians.
And if God had literal nostrils they must have been very large
to blow the waters away, and his lungs must have been even
larger to keep up this breath for many hours! Later passages
also say that God has wings and feathers:

Clearly these are metaphors for the power that saved the
Israelites. They were saved by logic: that is, by a very
intelligent leader. Nostrils and feathers are metaphors. The
idea of God in physical form was completely alien to Judaism.
In the years before the New Testament, the Septuagint
translators did their best to choose words that would not give
the slightest hint that God had a human form in any way. E. g.
the "image" of God was changed to the "glory" of the Lord and
the "mouth" of God became the "voice" of the Lord (see the
Jewish Encyclopedia: Anthropomorphism). Jesus put it
succinctly:

No man hath seen God at any time (John 1:18)

But Jesus went on to say that God (logic) can be revealed
through people. This was hardly a new concept: in the Old
Testament the word for God was "Elohim", a plural word, and
meant (according to Strong's Hebrew concordance)

Hence the Bible refers to Elohim (plural) walking in the
garden of Eden, having dinner with Abraham., etc. These Elohim
would have been people who claimed to have logic (God) inside
them, and therefore must be obeyed.

Personification: logic is
conscious

Theoretical physics is hard work. We can show mathematically
that logic can create everything, logic has rules, logic prefers some
outcomes to
others, and so on, but it takes a long time, Also, it does not
capture how it feels to be part of the universe, and to rely on it for
our needs. So it helps if we personify logic: to say "logic says this", or "logic wants that".

This is exactly the same reason why we personify ourselves.
What, after all, is a person? A person is a
pile of
atoms interacting in vastly complicated ways. But the only
practical everyday way to think of ourselves is by describing feelings
and desires.

Highly complex systems are best understood in terms of
emotions and needs. This is true of any complex system. Take computers
for example:

[M]ost hackers anthropomorphize freely, frequently
describing program behaviour in terms of wants and desires.
Thus it is common to hear hardware or software talked about as
though it has homunculi talking to each other inside it, with
intentions and desires. Thus, one hears The protocol handler
got confused , or that programs are trying to do things, or
one may say of a routine that its goal in life is to X . Or:
You can't run those two cards on the same bus; they fight over
interrupt 9. One even hears explanations like ... and its poor
little brain couldn't understand X, and it died. [...]

As hackers are among the people who know best how these
phenomena work, it seems odd that they would use language that
seems to ascribe consciousness to them. [...H]ackers who
anthropomorphize are expressing not a
vitalistic view of program behaviour but a mechanistic view
of human behaviour. Almost all hackers subscribe to
the mechanistic, materialistic ontology of science (this is in
practice true even of most of the minority with contrary
religious theories). In this view, people are biological
machines - consciousness is an interesting and valuable
epiphenomenon, but mind is implemented in machinery which is
not fundamentally different in information-processing capacity
from computers.

Hackers tend to take this a step further and argue that the
difference between a substrate of CHON atoms and water and a
substrate of silicon and metal is a relatively unimportant
one; what matters, what makes a thing
`alive', is information and richness of pattern.
This is animism from the flip side; it implies that humans and
computers and dolphins and rocks are all machines exhibiting a
continuum of modes of `consciousness' according to their
information-processing capacity.

Because hackers accept that a human machine can have
intentions, it is therefore easy for them to ascribe
consciousness and intention to complex patterned systems such
as computers. If consciousness is mechanical, it is neither
more or less absurd to say that The program wants to go into
an infinite loop than it is to say that I want to go eat some
chocolate - and even defensible to say that The stone, once
dropped, wants to move towards the centre of the earth .

Those who understand computers the best are most likely to
treat them as being conscious. Similarly, those who know
humans best are most likely to treat them as conscious, even
though consciousness is "nothing but" chemical processes.
Consciousness is the most useful and therefore the best way to
understand people, computers, and all complex systems,
including (and especially) the logic of the universe itself.

Logic's personality

Logic creates

Logic takes one condition and makes another: "if A and B,
then C". Just study theoretical physics (and then
biochemistry) to see how simple initial conditions logically
create an entire universe.

Logic has arms and legs

Logic created the universe. The universe is an expression, or
embodiment of logic: everything in the universe is a physical
manifestation of logic. So every person, every part, every
head and arm and leg is logic made flesh.

(Of course, each of us is only a small part of the big
picture. So we can appear to be wrong about things, just as
one side of an equation is unbalanced.)

If a person talks and acts in a logical, then we say "that is
a logical person." So that person is a part of logic, and
logic is part
of the person. Jesus said something similar about God (see
below)

Logic has desire

When a person or other complex system tends to move in a
certain direction we say it has a desire to do so. For
example, logic leads to its conclusions, and we say a graph
"tends toward" a particular direction. Even the simplest
particle of matter has inertia: a desire to continue at its
present velocity. So everything has desire.

Logic has morality

Logic creates the universe, including living things. Living
things must logically want to survive (otherwise they would be
quickly replaced by those who do). Logically, we survive best
through cooperation. Methods of cooperation are known as
morality: we see the other person's point of view, help the
tribe, do not kill or cheat, etc.

Logic cares for us

For us to exist, the universe (a creation of logic) has
provided for all our needs. Giving someone al they need is
called caring for them.

Logic is love

The first letter of John contains this extra definition of
God:

He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
(1 John 4:8)

'Love' is the Greek "agape" meaning
brotherly love: that is, treating others like ourselves. That
fairness makes a society stronger because they enable the most
efficient use of resources. In other words, "agape" is logic:
the logic of survival (and its bi-product, a happy society).

Logic will answer our questions

If you have a question use logic and you will get the best
possible answer.

Logic loves you personally

For the best chance of survival, every member of the tribe
(or family) matters. So logically you matter, personally. (And
if you sacrifice your life for your tribe or family and that
is the logical thing to do, don't worry: your consciousness
will survive. See part two of this book.)

Logic has a sense of humour

Humour is that which provokes laughter: usually through
combining the unexpected or absurd. The universe is full of
such humour.

Hunter gatherers, who live close to nature, laugh frequently.
Scientists who truly love their field often laugh at the
pleasure of some unexpected thing. Devout skeptics like
Douglas Adams and Terry Pratchett made a career out of
laughing at the universe. Even mathematicians take a childish
delight in particularly pleasing discoveries: Logic is always
throwing up the unexpected: it loves to play tricks. So logic
has a sense of humour.

Logic gives moral certainty

Logic is always constant and unchanging. In contrast, any
current evidence, such as scientific findings or
interpretation of a holy text, is subject to the possibility
of change. If we base our ideas on anything except logic then
our ideas are relative to something that might change. But
logic itself does not change: it is the standard by which
everything else is judged. Logic is the only sure foundation.

Different logics (different gods)

Today we don't just talk of one logos, but many. We have the
logos of the biome (bio-logy), the logos of society
(socio-logy), the logos of the physical body (physio-logy) and
so on. It was no different in ancient times, except they
personified each logos to make it easier to remember.

The Greeks and the Hebrews

The Greeks are better known than the Hebrews for respecting
logic.
So in this part of the book I will often compare Greek and
Hebrew
religion.

The Greeks had many logics (or logoi). For
example the Greeks had the logos of the endless oceans
embodied in the Titan Oceanus, and the logos of nearby seas
embodied in the god Poseidon,
then various nymphs to represent the different characteristics
of local
waterways. Oceanus was unfathomable and distant and eternal,
Poseidon was unpredictable and to be treated with great
respect, and the nymphs were helpful or treacherous depending
on the waters. Thus the Greeks
simplified complex topics through personification.

For ancient Greeks the council of gods was the Olympians.
When they wished to refer to something that was generally
agreed they could refer to
"the gods" rather than a particular god.

For most peoples of the near east the council of gods was
called "il" or "el". The ancient Hebrews also had a council of
gods, or divine council, called "Elohim" (the ending "-him"
means plural).

The Hebrews decided that only logic mattered, so in their
divine council the other gods to be
just messengers (angels), but they are still referred to as
"Elohim",
e.fg. in Psalms:

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of
man, that thou visitest him? For thou hast made him a little
lower than the angels [Elohim, literally "gods"], and hast
crowned him with glory and honour. (Psalm 8:4-5)

So whereas the Greeks
had Zeus (head of the gods), Ares (god of war) and Hermes
(messenger god), the Hebrews had Yahweh (the one god), Michael
(angel of war: see Daniel 12:1, Revelation 12:7), and Gabriel
(for the most important messages).

Battles between logics

As generations pass, different logics (logoi) gain and lose
status. For example in modern times, phreno-logy (the logos of
reading bumps on the head) lost ground because it failed in
real world tests, whereas psycho-logy (the logos of thoughts)
was more successful. We see the same battles in the earliest
history of the Hebrews, in the battle between Baal and Yahweh.

Ball and Yahweh were originally "storm gods". The lands of
the near east were very dry, so survival depended on
understanding the logic of rain. Obviously that meant
irrigating where possible, and using the best crops, but how
do you organise the people? How do you respond to needs? There
were two competing theories, represented by the Yahweh and
Baal.

Baal's logic was strong leadership: a strong ruler can have
good advisers and tell people what to do. This seemed
rational. but whether or not it led to better harvests, one
obvious result was that cities that followed Baal tended to
have a wealthy king who owned all the land.

Yahweh's logic (in the books of Moses) was to have no king,
but share the land equally, and teach the people correct
principles (do not steal, care for the poor, etc.). The
thinking (as later explained in the first book of Samuel) is
that kings tend to be out of touch and yet they take all your
resources. So the cities that followed Yahweh leave fewer
grand monuments for archaeologists, but they treated their
written law as sacred.

The logic that won

Which logic was more correct? For centuries the two
approaches lived side by side, but gradually Yahweh's
equal-land, sacred law approach gave better economic results.
So Yahweh replaced Baal. See part five of this book for
details.

Yahweh became so successful that he was treated as "the one"
god. because once you have rain, justice and wealth, all other
concerns seem trivial in comparison. But of course wealth
brings envy,
and soon Israel had kings and central control again, and the
economy went into
relative decline. Again, see part five for details.

Sacrifice

It may be hard for modern people to see ancient religion as
logical. After all, didn't these gods demand animal
sacrifices? Yes, and there was good logic behind it.

For a nation to run you need communication. This is easy in
modern times: technology makes it easy to communicate. But in
ancient times it might take weeks or months for messages to
spread, and sophisticated detail was almost impossible. So how
do you
know that the people are really committed to your message? If
you send out a message
how do you know they are not just nodding their heads and then
forget
you once you go?

Almost every ancient culture solved the communication problem
in the same way: through sacrifice. If people do more than
they have to, if they are willing to sacrifice the best of
their (scarce) possessions, then you (and their neighbours)
can be sure that that they are committed to the cause.

In modern times we still sacrifice for the same reason. For
example,
we spend more than we need to on a home, to demonstrate that
the home is very important
to us. If we just bought the cheapest possible goods then
those around
us would question our commitment. Much of the modern economy
is based on this kind of sacrifice: people spend more than
they
have to, in order to send a message about their values. This
communication is the glue that holds society together. So
sacrifice is logical.

Religion

Religion
literally means a study of logic. Cicero explained religion
in his book "De Natura Deorum" - "The Nature of the Gods"
(in book 2, part 72). He wrote that Religion originally
meant "relegere", from "re- legos" or "re-logos", meaning to
go through the logos (or reasons) for something.

Cicero contrasts the religious (those who understand reasons)
with the superstitious: from the word "superstes" meaning
survivor. The superstitious are those who think they will be
blessed (i.e. they or their children will survive the harsh
world) simply because they believe the right things or obey
the right rules. That describes modern religion, but it is the
opposite of ancient religion.

However, later Christians (such as Augustine) changed
religion to mean "religare" or "to bind fast", in the sense of
"place an obligation on". (See the Online Etymological
Dictionary). A system of logic (re-logos) was gradually
replaced by a system of blind obedience (religare). This
process is covered in parts eight and nine of this book.

The kingdom of God

A kingdom is an economic unit: that is, laws for how people
interact, how they give and take. Moses and Jesus offered a
template for the kingdom of God: that is, a template for the
kingdom of logic. This template is based on land rent: it has
no taxation, but is based on clear laws, and judges when
needed, but no hierarchy: no human kings. See parts five and
six of
this book.

Prophets and priests

At this point it is probably worth mentioning the
difference between priests and prophets, and the great danger
of
confusing the two roles.

Priests and prophets are opposites. The nation of Israel had
priests to carry out day to day work. It also had prophets:
from time to time: men who would arise and speak logic, and
their actions would prove their logic.

Priests are necessary bureaucrats, insiders. Prophets are
troublemakers, outsiders. A prophet is known only by his
results, not his position. "By their fruits ye shall know
them".

If a prophet arises and speaks great truth then the worst
thing we can do is give him an administrative position.
Position brings power, and power is an incentive for
corruption (and the self deception that goes with it).

For more about hierarchies see part five (about kings and
economic health) and part six (especially the commentary to
Mark 10:42-44).

Greek and Hebrew religion

Greeks and Romans

Earlier I referred to Cicero's view that religion means
re-legos, or repeated study of logic. This was not some
minority fringe opinion. If Cicero said it, it counts. "The
influence of Cicero upon the history of European literature
and ideas greatly exceeds that of any other prose writer in
any language" (according to classicist Michael Grant).

The religion
definition comes from Cicero's book "gods". Gods was a
summary of the full range of religious views, represented by
the Epicureans (who thought life was to be enjoyed), the
Stoics (who thought life was to be suffered), and the
skeptics (who thought life was to be questioned).

Epicureans followed the teachings of Epicurus, who rejected
anything that sounded supernatural. The Stoics did believe in
gods, but they were metaphors for ideas: a god of war, a
goddess of love, and so on.

But did they believe?

There is plenty of evidence that the average Greek was just
as
superstitious as anybody else: just read "the Greeks and the
Irrational" by Dodds if there is any doubt. But once again I
return to the
methodology of this book. I am not interested in the views of
people who thought it was all magic. I am interested in the
views of those who's
views made rational sense. In every age there were many who
saw through
the metaphor and saw the logic beneath. There was always a
Plato or a
Cisero or a Philo.

Myths are true

Another vital point, perhaps the most important, is that
myths
matter. Myths decide how we treat facts. Here I use "myth" in
Roland
Barthe's sense. Myth does not mean lie, myth means the story
that allows us to make sense of the universe. For example,
every "good guys versus
bad guys" story is a myth: to the bad guys they are the good
guys. but
"good guys versus bad guys" lets us communicate values and
conclusions
more efficiently than a lengthy argument.

Ancient readers seemed far more comfortable with myth than we
are.
The Greeks did not care if Hercules was a real man who lived
at a
certain date: Hercules represented their values and concerns.
Hercules
was a means of communication.

"Myth is truthful, but figuratively so. It is not historical
truth mixed with lies; it is a high philosophical teaching
that is entirely true, on the condition that, instead of
taking it literally, one sees in it an allegory. Two schools
exist then: the criticism of legends by historians and the
allegorical interpretation of legends by the majority of
philosophers, including the Stoics. From this will emerge the
allegorical exegesis of the Bible destined for fifteen hundred
years of triumph. " (Paul Veyne, "Did the Greeks Believe in
Their Myths?" p. 62)

Now back to the more educated readers, who were well aware of
the value of logic and metaphor.

Christians, before Paul

For the earliest Christian view of God, read Philo of
Alexandria. He discussed the topic at great length. Philo was
a contemporary of Jesus (actually twenty years older), and was
very popular with the early Christians. Jesus quotes Philo in
the gospel of Thomas (in saying 19, see part eight of this
book). Unlike most first century books Philo's are still
available: they were carefully preserved, because nearly all
sides of Christianity agreed on them. St Jerome even called
Philo one of the fathers of the church.

Modern critics argue that Philo was merely adding Greek ideas
to Moses, and Moses saw God as anthropomorphic. But Moses
taught the opposite: God is purely abstract, and cannot be
represented by any graven image.

Old Testament Judaism

Old Testament Judaism was about wisdom, not supernatural
belief. There is no practically no mention of life after death
in the supernatural sense (see part two of this book), but
there are whole books full of proverbs and wisdom.

There is no requirement in the Old Testament to believe
anything in particular, except to love logic. The law of Moses
was not supernatural, but was a set of laws for running a
state, like the laws of Hammurabi, or Solon of Athens, or any
other great thinker-leader.

Moses' miracles were not supernatural either, but were
evidence of his intellect: see part four of this book.

Greek and Hebrew religion compared

Scholars routinely draw a contrast between the later Jews
(with their concrete teachings and appeals to holy texts) and
later Greeks (with their abstract ideals and appeals to
logic). But in the early days their religions were remarkably
similar:

Personification:
The Greeks personified wisdom and called her Sophia. The
Israelites personified logic and called him God.

A divine council of gods. The main difference between
Greek and
Hebrew religion was that the Hebrews personified the highest
god, logic, and the Greeks did not. For Plato, logic was a
separate category to the gods.
To the Hebrews logic was the only god who mattered and all
other gods
were either demoted to just angels or declared to be false.

Fallible gods: Genesis describes fallible gods who could
be challenged by humans, and the humans won (see part three
of this book).

Structure:
Both had oracles, sacrifices, temples, priests, etc.

Rules:
Moses' teachings were not concerned with belief but with how
to establish a state, the same topic that exercised
Pythagoras, Plato and the rest. The main difference was that
Moses' ideas worked. Pythagoras' communes were experimental
and did not scale well. Plato's ideal of enlightened despots
was just wrong. But Moses' non-hierarchical system based on
equal access to land could actually work, especially when
refined by Jesus for a more advanced economy. See part five
of this book for details.

Cross pollination
See below for how the Greek and Hebrew religion influenced
one another.

Phoenicia: the Hebrew link with Greece

The earliest Hebrews and Greeks were almost neighbours and
shared ideas. Most people do not make the connection because
the Hebrews who dealt with the Greeks were known by a
different name: Phoenicians.

"Phoenician" is not a term the Phoenicians used: it is simply
a name for people from the cities of Tyre and Sidon on the
coasts of Canaan (and later their colonies in Carthage and
elsewhere). Historians are unable to find much of a
distinctive culture: there are no Phoenician legends or books
for example (see the BBC radio four "in Our Time" episode for
a good overview). The early Phoenicians were simply the
seafaring Canaanites.

And who were the Canaanites? Later Hebrews tried to emphasise
a big difference between themselves and the Canaanites, but
the earliest texts (e.g. the book of Judges) and archaeology
agree that they were culturally mixed, with shrines to Baal
and YHWH side by side. While some Israelites may have spent
time in Egypt (the story of Moses), they were originally from
Canaan, and when they returned they rejoined their former
people.

How the Hebrews influenced the Greeks

Most scholars
are familiar with how later Greeks influenced Jewish thought. But less well
known is how the earliest Hebrews influenced Greece.

It is well known that the Greeks got their alphabet from the
Phoenicians. Some argue that Thales, the first Greek
philosopher, was Phoenician. Certainly the Phoenicians, the
great seafarers and traders, would be best placed to share
ideas.

Josephus claimed that the Greeks were greatly influenced by
the ancient Jews:

"Pythagoras, therefore, of Samos, lived in very ancient
times, and was esteemed a person superior to all philosophers
in wisdom and piety towards God. Now it is plain that he did
not only know our doctrines, but was in very great measure a
follower and admirer of them. There is not indeed extant any
writing that is owned for his (15) but many there are who have
written his history, of whom Hermippus is the most celebrated,
who was a person very inquisitive into all sorts of history.
Now this Hermippus, in his first book concerning Pythagoras,
speaks thus: 'That Pythagoras, upon the death of one of his
associates, whose name was Calliphon, a Crotonlate by birth,
affirmed that this man's soul conversed with him both night
and day, and enjoined him not to pass over a place where an
ass had fallen down; as also not to drink of such waters as
caused thirst again; and to abstain from all sorts of
reproaches.' After which he adds thus: 'This he did and said
in imitation of the doctrines of the Jews and Thracians, which
he transferred into his own philosophy.' For it is very truly
affirmed of this Pythagoras, that he took a great many of the
laws of the Jews into his own philosophy. Nor was our nation
unknown of old to several of the Grecian cities, and indeed
was thought worthy of imitation by some of them. [Josephus
then gives examples.]" (Flavius Josephus Against Apion, book
1)

The key to understanding Geek and Hebrew ideas of God (as
well as God in other cultures) is the distinction between
ultimate truth (logic) and all the people, both real and
fictional, who have claimed the title god. For example, in the
Old testament the Hebrew word "Elohim" applies to all gods,
including people or judges acting in the name of God.

In Greek and early Christian thought (and Jewish thought, as
the earliest "gnostic" texts probably predate Christianity)
these lower gods were called "skilled workers", or in Greek,
"demiurge."

Plato's Timaeus

To explain the difference between the lower gods and the
higher logic or logos, Plato wrote his dialogue "Timaeus." It
is a dialogue about the nature of the gods. It reconciles the
different gods of (e.g.) Hesiod's Theogony with the abstract
arguments of Plato.

Timaeus explains that a god is like a skilled worker (a
"demiurge"): very capable, very powerful and clever, and
usually (but not always) benevolent. But the demiurge is not
the logos.

Genesis and the demiurge

Genesis teaches the same principle as Timaeus. It tells of
fallible rulers (gods) who are gradually replaced by the
higher concept of logic. Genesis teaches of local gods who
might visit you in the garden (Eden) or they have dinner with
you (as they did with Abraham). These gods might tell you to
do troubling things: like do not eat of knowledge, or
sacrifice your first born son. Genesis teaches that a higher
truth, reason, can override this.

Part three of this book discusses the Eden episode in depth.
As for Abraham, his gods told him to sacrifice Isaac, but he
decided not to, and later Israelite prophets condemned their
neighbours the other Canaanites for "passing their children
through the fire" (child sacrifice). Gradually, tradition and
local rulers were replaced by a higher law: logic.

The most learned early Christians discussed the demiurge at
length, contrasting the lower gods of Genesis with the higher
god, logic. For more about the learned Christians see part
eight of this book.

Genesis and polytheism

Most scholars accept that the earliest Hebrews were
polytheists. There is plenty of evidence for this: e.g. the
word "Elohim" is plural, there are many references to the
divine council, worship of Yahweh and Baal existed side by
side for centuries, and polytheism was the normal form of
religion everywhere. Traditionally, Abraham is credited with
shifting the emphasis to monotheism: saying that the true
ruler, the true Yahweh, was logic and not any earthly king.
But Abraham's father Terah was a polytheist, as were Terah's
fathers before him: these were the great patriarchs of the
Genesis. They all worshipped "Elohim", the gods, plural.

Genesis and the Greek creation story

The Genesis creation story appears to be based on earlier
Sumerian (and later Babylonian) story, the Enuma Elis. The
Greek creations story appears to be based on the same account,
though the accounts focus on different aspects. It is possible
that the Greek version (best known through Hesiod's Theogony)
is a descendant of the Sumerian version, perhaps via the
Hittite "kingship in heaven" myth: "similarities
between this myth and the Theogony are striking." (classics.upenn.edu/myth/php/hesiod)

More about God

The face of God

Moses' followers wanted to see something. But how do you show
an abstract idea? Moses needed to physically show the concept
of ideas.

In Hebrew, ideas are in words or breath, the word "ruwach".
It can be translated both as air and as spirit. The same is
true in Greek: 'pneuma' means both breath and spirit. So Moses
needed to show the breath of God: air itself. But how do you
show air? Air is invisible. So you have to show a
manifestation of air:

Fire: God appeared as a burning
bush, or a pillar of fire (presumably from offerings or
incense burned by the priests).

Cloud: (from the same burning
incense) or smoke on the mountain. For more about God and
cloud, see the commentary to Mark 13:26 in part 7 of this
book.

The heavens: When we look up we
look through the air, and for all Moses knew the air
continued right to the stars.

Seeing God "face to face" meant smoke, or fire, or looking
upwards:

The LORD made not this covenant with our fathers, but with
us, even us, who are all of us here alive this day. The LORD
talked with you face to face in the mount out of the midst of
the fire, (I stood between the LORD and you at that time, to
shew you the word of the LORD: for ye were afraid by reason of
the fire, and went not up into the mount;) (Deuteronomy 5:3-6;
see also Exodus 18:12)

The people who advised Moses

Since a "god" meant a ruler or representative of the ultimate
God, sometimes Moses was a god to others:

And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to
Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (Exodus
7:1)

And when Moses took logical advice from his father in law,
Jethro (Exodus 18), Jethro represented God. But to Moses it
was important not to identify God with an individual, to avoid
the worship of individuals or things (see Deuteronomy
4:15-19). So a person was never called a god in front of
others.

Whoever spoke for God, he hid behind smoke (as on Sinai), or
in this case he simply told Moses to look away:

Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me,
and live. And the LORD said, Behold, there is a place by me,
and thou shalt stand upon a rock: And it shall come to pass,
while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a cleft of
the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by:
And I will take away mine hand, and thou shalt see my back
parts: but my face shall not be seen. (Exodus 33:20-23)

Centuries later the Catholic church used the same principle:
when confessing to a priest the priest is hidden.

It is fun to speculate who might have advised (i.e. acted as
a god to) Moses: Jethro again? One of the priests of Midian,
where Moses learned his religion? Or perhaps a woman? Is that
the subtext of Numbers 12? The people were very sexist and
would not accept Moses taking orders from a woman:

And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the
Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an
Ethiopian woman. And they said, Hath the Lord indeed spoken
only by Moses? hath he not spoken also by us? And the Lord
heard it. (Now the man Moses was very meek, above all the men
which were upon the face of the earth.) (Numbers 12:1-3)

"Ethiopian" in Hebrew just means from Cush - that is, she
could have been from anywhere in Africa. The reference to
being meek suggests that Moses was taking instruction from
somebody. Aaron and Miriam (Moses' sister) say that
God can speak through them, so speaking through a woman is
accepted. Why does marrying the African woman raise the
question of Moses' authority? Was he taking her advice? It
would be strange for a wife not to offer advice to her
husband.

Yet another possibility is that Moses had brought advisers
from Egypt. Some scholars have pointed out similarities
between the monotheism of Moses and of the apostate Pharaoh
Akhenaten. Given that Moses' message was "escape from slavery
to Egypt" it would make sense to keep Egyptian advisers secret
from whoever wrote Exodus.

But all of this is idle speculation. Whoever advised Moses
does not matter: only what they said matters. The truth of
logic is contained in the logic, not in who says it.

The voice of God

Moses' decisions were called God's decisions, and Moses'
words were called God's words (Exodus 18:15-16). The spirit
(literally the breath) of God filled Moses and gave him all
wisdom and understanding (Exodus 35:31). Why? Because Moses'
words were logical (see parts three and five of this book for
details).God talks to us

When Moses came down from the mountain, it is said the Lord
passed in front of Moses and then spoke. Given that the people
were not permitted to see God other than as smoke, this
probably indicates that God's voice was the voice of Moses
(Exodus 34:5-7) or of a priest.

Most of the time (e.g. when routinely acting as judge to his
people) Moses just received God's words in his mind. This is
how later prophets usually experienced God: as ideas in the
head. That is, "a still small voice" (1 Kings 19:11-13).

During the time in the wilderness God appeared to Balaam
(Numbers 22-23) but it appears that means God put words into
Balaam's mind (Numbers 23:5).

God the Father

Isaiah refers to God as "father" because he redeems us when
others forget us:

In ancient Israel a redeemer was a person, usually a family
member
such as a father, who paid (redeemed) any debts and ensured
justice
after we died or got in trouble. (For more about redeemers see
part two
of this book.) This is a good personification of logic: if we
do the
logical thing then even if we die things will work out for the
best.

Jesus often referred to God as father. According to Strong's
Greek
concordance, the word for father ("pater") can also mean the
originator and transmitter of anything. Logic causes
everything, so "father" is a very good word. But Jesus'
followers did not understand the concept
of personification.

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it
sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time
with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? He that hath
seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew
us the Father? (John 14:8-9)

Jesus was personifying logic, and did not refer to a
supernatural being, as we can see form the verses that
followed:

Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father
in me? [...] Believe me that I am in the Father, and the
Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.
[...] At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye
in me, and I in you. (John 14:10, 11, 21)

God can be inside a person while a person is inside God. This
is only possible of God is logic. (And note that human
identity, our spirit, is our ideas: see part two of this
book.)

Jesus had logic inside him. For the evidence, see parts six
and eight of this book.

Christianity and atheism

The more intellectual Christians rejected all supernatural
gods, and so were called atheists by the Romans. This is from
Justin Martyr, who loved Greek philosophy and understood that
God is the logos:

And when Socrates endeavoured, by true reason and
examination, to bring these things to light, and deliver men
from the demons, then the demons themselves, by means of men
who rejoiced in iniquity, compassed his death, as an atheist
and a profane person, on the charge that “he was introducing
new divinities;” and in our case they display a similar
activity. For not only among the Greeks did reason (Logos)
prevail to condemn these things through Socrates, but also
among the Barbarians were they condemned by Reason (or the
Word, the Logos) Himself, who took shape, and became man, and
was called Jesus Christ; and in obedience to Him, we not only
deny that they who did such things as these are gods, but
assert that they are wicked and impious demons, whose actions
will not bear comparison with those even of men desirous of
virtue. Hence are we called atheists. And we confess that we
are atheists, so far as gods of this sort are concerned, but
not with respect to the most true God, the Father of
righteousness and temperance and the other virtues, who is
free from all impurity. (Justin Martyr, first apology,
chapters 5 and 6)

Jesus as God

After saying that God is logic, John continued:

And the Word [logos: word of logic] was made flesh, and
dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the
only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. (John
1:14)

'Only begotten' is the Greek word
"monogenes", meaning the most important one (mono) of the
family (genes). This comes from Plato's Timaeus:

"the sensible [i.e. visible to the senses] God who is the
image of the intellectual, the greatest, best, fairest, most
perfect-the one only begotten heaven." (Timaeus 92c)

To Plato, the world of logic is the real world and the
physical world is like shadows of that real world. The best
possible example in any group or family (monogenes) is the one
that is closest to the abstract logical ideal. John is saying
that Jesus is the ideal man.

'Grace' is the Greek word "charis".
In Greek mythology the graces are women who represent
splendour (the grace called Aglaea), mirth (Euphrosyne), and
good cheer (Thalia). That is the kind of person Jesus was,
according to John.

Jesus was the opposite of supernatural

John 1:14 said Jesus was full of truth. This is the Greek
"aletheia" or opening up: the most commonly used Greek lexicon
defines the word as "objectivity". The philosopher Heidegger
spoke at length about the word:

"Heidegger gave an etymological analysis of aletheia, and
drew out an understanding of the term as 'unconcealedness'.
Thus, aletheia is distinct from conceptions of truth
understood as statements which accurately describe a state of
affairs (correspondence), or statements which fit properly
into a system taken as a whole (coherence). Instead, Heidegger
focused on the elucidation of how an ontological 'world' is
disclosed, or opened up, in which things are made intelligible
for human beings in the first place, as part of a holistically
structured background of meaning." (Wikipedia, aletheia)

In short, this is not supernatural truth. Aletheia provides
the metaphysical basis for any understanding of the real
world. God is the opposite of supernatural: he is the logic
that makes everything visible. Hence:

The rise of the supernatural

If God is logic, why do so many people treat him as a
supernatural being? It works as a metaphor, but why don't more
scholars see through it? The simple answer is history.
Scholars respect history, and throughout history would-be
kings and priests have promoted the idea of a
supernatural God. It's the easy way to get power.

Kings favoured the supernatural

Logic does not favour kings. Logic lets us see our king's
mistakes. But a supernatural God is different: anybody who
wants power can say "I am chosen by God" and nobody can prove
they are not. It worked for Pharaoh, it worked for Saul, and
it has worked for kings and priests throughout history.

The poor and weak believe the king: they have little choice
if they want to eat. Some scholars make a good living by not
rocking the boat, while other scholars make trouble by saying
the emperor has no clothes and the true God is logic.

How kings first gain power

Moses opposed kings. Moses told the people to always remember
what it was like to be slaves in Egypt. To ensure it could
never happen again he created a society where land was shared
out equally and decisions were made by judges. But eventually
kings returned. The prophets warned against kings (see for
example 1 Samuel 8) but the would-be kings used the same
argument they always use: "you are surrounded by dangers! You
need a strong leader to keep you safe!" For priestly elites
the argument is similar: "you are in great danger after death,
you need my religion to save you!"

History and logic show that this argument is false. Elites
take resources while adding nothing (they are no smarter than
a cheaper, elected official). So monarchies and theocracies
are weaker than democracies. And kings like to start wars, not
end them. But people are easily swayed by fear, and so elites
gain power.

How the Jews embraced the supernatural

Once the Jews accepted kings to rule over them the rejection
of logic was clear. Most people were uneducated anyway, so the
kings merely had to undermine or ignore the educated people.
We see this in the book of 1 Samuel: the prophet warned
against kings, but this particular prophet (Samuel) had bad
children. So Saul, a man who would be king, just had to say
"look at his children! This man is no moral authority. You can
ignore him." So Saul became Israel's first king. From then on
the prophets were either lone voices in the wilderness, or (in
the case of Isaiah) on the king's payroll. Logic was no longer
king.

Later scholars (such as the great medieval Jewish scholar
Maimonides) looked back and saw the intellectual decline:

"In common with many medieval writers, Jewish, Christian,
and Muslim, Maimonides is of the opinion that Jews in
antiquity once cultivated the science of physics and
metaphysics, which they later neglected for a medley of
reasons, historical and theological" (R. Isadore Twersky,
"Some Non-Halakic Aspects of the Mishneh Torah" in R.
Alexander Altmann, quoted in hirhurim.blogspot.co.uk)

How Jesus' followers embraced the supernatural

Jesus taught logic and rejected hierarchies (see part six of
this book) and his more educated followers, such as John,
openly stated that God is logic. But immediately after that he
noted that this was a hard concept for most people to grasp:

And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness
comprehended it not. (John 1:4-5)

The men on whom the light shone, the men who listened to
Jesus' words, did not understand. Part nine of this book give
the details. Part eight focuses on Paul, a man who saw Jesus
when Jesus was supposed to be dead, and spent the rest of his
life promoting a supernatural theology.

Anti-intellectualism in the Bible?

How do we reconcile "God is logic" with this verse?

Canst thou by searching find out God? canst thou find out
the Almighty unto perfection? It is as high as heaven; what
canst thou do ? deeper than hell; what canst thou know? (Job
11:7-8)

But there is one problem: Job 11 is an example of a false
belief. It is spoken by Zohar, who speaks against the
prophet Job, and calls him a liar:

Then answered Zophar the Naamathite, and said, Should not
the multitude of words be answered ? and should a man full of
talk be justified? Should thy lies make men hold their peace?
(Job 11:1-3)

In the next chapter Job answers, and says Zophar is
completely wrong. Can a man by searching find God? Yes!
Through asking questions of nature:

But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the
fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee: Or speak to the
earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea
shall declare unto thee. (Job 12:7-8)

Wisdom versus foolishness

The last few chapters of Job are God saying that his evidence
is in physical things: in the origin of the earth, natural
processes, and the living world.

Job does not have access to those observations, so rationally
concludes that he does not know everything. Job shows wisdom:
that is, reasoning ability. In contrast, Zophar said a man cannot
know. That is not wisdom, and Zophar and the others are
condemned.

In summary:

Wisdom means reasoning ability.

The evidence for specific questions is physical and
measurable.

We may not have the data we would like, but we can still
use and trust logic.

To say that we cannot know for sure (as Zohar did) is
simply false.

Like Socrates and Plato and all great philosophers, Job
taught by means of dialogue. Chapter by chapter, Job would
make a case, his opponent will give an alternate view, and Job
would respond.

In the examples from Job, Job argued the evidence of God is
in physical things. In other words, the philosopher is
appealing to what modern people call science.

For more examples of prophets using reason and opposing the
supernatural, see parts three to five of this book.

Jesus agrees

Can man by searching find God? Yes.

And I say unto you, Ask, and it shall be given you; seek,
and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you.
(Luke 11:9)

Is God unknowable? No.

And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only
true God... (John 17:3)

Do we find God through logical debate? Yes. That was Jesus'
main teaching method. See the commentary to Mark 1:22 in part
six of this book.

The idea that the Bible is anti-intellectual can be traced to
Paul. Paul's only experience with Jesus was dramatic: Paul
(then called Saul) thought that Jesus was dead, the Jesus
appeared to him and was alive. This changed Paul's life. He
decided that Jesus was supernatural. So he went looking for
scriptures to support his view. This is the only one he could
find:

"For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise,
and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent."
(1 Corinthians 1:19)

This appears to refer to Isaiah 29:

For the wisdom of their wise men shall perish, and the
understanding of their prudent men shall be hid. (Isaiah
29:14)

But it is taken out of context. The complete quotation
praises the wise and condemns the foolish:

Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near
me with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but
have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me
is taught by the precept of men: Therefore, behold, I will
proceed to do a marvellous work among this people, even a
marvellous work and a wonder: for the wisdom of their wise men
shall perish , and the understanding of their prudent men
shall be hid. (Isaiah 29:14)

Isaiah 29 is about the threat of Assyria invading in 722BC.
Political counsellors (wise men) were negotiating with Egypt
for protection, but that was short sighted: Egypt would take
Israel's freedom in return. Isaiah condemned this (see Isaiah
19:11-17, Isaiah 20:5,6, Isaiah 30:1,2, etc.). Isaiah promised
that if the nation instead returned to the land laws of Moses
they would be economically strong, and eventually they would
be free on their own: (that is the "marvellous work"). So
Isaiah was condemning certain politicians, and not wisdom.
Indeed, Isaiah himself was a wise and learned man, probably
the most learned of the prophets.

The foolish counsellors were condemn they "have removed their
heart far from me." In ancient times the heart was considered
the centre of life and of thought. Contrast this with the
bowels which were the centre of emotion (Isaiah 16:11; 63:15;
Song of Solomon 5:4;etc.) Far from condemning intellectuals,
Isaiah condemns people for not thinking clearly!

In short, God is logic. If someone "lacks understanding" they
should ask God (see James 1:5) and they will get answers.
Logic is like that: appeal to logic, and you get answers.

If God is logic, why not just call him
logic?

Why use the word "God"? For accuracy.

God is logic in the ancient sense, the bigger sense.
The modern definition is very narrow: simply the fundamental
abstract rules. But the ancient definition of logos was "the
word" in the sense of rational discussion. It meant ultimate
wisdom and its implications: the powers of nature. Logic and
logos are two concepts, so they require two words.

Logic alone
(in the modern sense) may leave us thinking this is a cold
and meaningless universe. But trace the implications of
logic - how it creates the universe, how it creates
consciousness, how morality helps us survive, and we see the
opposite.

The need for humility

Using the
word "God" for logic emphasizes humility. It reminds is that
logic should rule us, even when our feelings say we know
better.

It is easy to
be ruled by feelings, and usually this is a good thing:
feelings exist in order to make complex decisions very
quickly, and most of the time they are more or less right.
But when a question is very important we need to take
whatever time it needs and trace the logic instead.

Ironically,
those who use the narrow modern definition of logic often
use it to support an appeal to emotion. Here are some
examples:

History: emotion versus logic

The Bible is
sometimes dismissed as a bronze age document. This is an
appeal to emotion. It is true that they had far fewer
scientific discoveries, but it does not follow that they
knew less about concepts like power and land ownership. If
anything, a simpler society means human nature should be
easier to see.

Moses and
Jesus taught that work should not be taxed: we should pay
rent on land instead. These lessons were learned the hard
way, by seeing how people try to grab resources, and the
misery and weakness this creates. Land rent is economically
and socially more advanced than our present system of taxing
work. It can be demonstrated both logically and empirically
(just read Adam Smith). It is not logical to reject an
observation just because it was first made long ago.

Politics: emotion versus logic

The Bible is sometimes dismissed because so much evil has
been done in the name of religion. This is another appeal to
emotion. Logically it fails because there is no evidence that
atheism is any better for humanity. The list of modern atheist
states is not encouraging: Soviet Russia, Communist China,
North Korea, etc. They are not models of tolerance. Of course,
atheists argue that these states are not really
atheist. Likewise, Christians point out that hateful people
are not following Christ, and moderate Muslims say that
extremists are not following the Koran. This is the "no true
Scotsman" fallacy.

Statistics: emotion versus logic

Another appeal to emotion is the anecdotal one: "no atheist
ever burnt somebody for their beliefs!" Even if this were
true, it does not follow logically that atheism is a better
course: for that claim to be statistically valid we need to
look at all deaths, all suffering, all benefits, all
happiness, and adjust for population, historical norms, etc.
but in general, the idea that atheists do not persecute is
false. The Soviet Union for example was an atheist state and
persecuted plenty of people for their beliefs.

"Estimates of the total number all Christian martyrs in the
former Soviet Union are about 12 million.” (James M. Nelson,
“Psychology,
Religion, and Spirituality”, p.427)

If we want to restrict our search to just burning people
alive, we could note that the atheist North Korean leader
burnt his enemies alive because they did not have the correct
political beliefs (in Pyongyang's 150,000-capacity May Day
Stadium, reported in the Daily Telegraph, 13 June 2004). Of
course, this was for political
and not religious
belief, which must have been a great comfort to those being
burned. But killing is never for beliefs, that is always just
a cover. Look at any group that has been killed for
"religious" reasons: Cathars, Jews, "witches" or anybody else.
In every case they had the same beliefs for centuries before
and centuries after. Nothing changed in the period of
persecution other than politics. The persecutor held political
power, felt that power was threatened, so found it useful to
blame a dissenter. Or once the process was normalised, found
this a convenient way to steal somebody's money. belief did
not matter too much: you could just as easily be targeted for
political views, or just being an outsider or somebody
convenient to blame. Persecution is always about power, never
belief.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, what ancient people believed is of
itself of little interest. What matters is what (if anything)
a belief
in God can offer here and
now that cannot more easily be obtained some other
way.

An understanding of history is one answer. The ability to
connect with billions of other believers is another. An
understanding of life after death is another. But for me, it
is the economic teachings of Moses and Jesus: land rent offers
is a better economic system than one based on taxing work: and
governing by consent (Jesus' method) is a better system than
ruling through a
monopoly on power.

But to be certain of these economic and political advantages
we need to study the Bible as if it is an economic and
political
history, and an economic and political text book. That is what
I intend
to do in this book.